Jeff Thomas
New member
From time to time, here on TFL, we have discussed the importance of terms and semantics in this debate. And, we have noted the anti-self defense movements use of language to bludgeon the Bill of Rights. Well, it is time for payback.
Alan Korwin, author of various gun law books ( http://www.gunlaws.com ) has now summarized these thoughts, refined them, and added more. This is long, so scan it, and / or visit his web site.
It is high time we made the dark side dance to our tune for awhile.
Regards from AZ
********************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Korwin <alan@bloomfieldpress.com>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 12:34 PM
Subject: Politically Corrected Glossary
> Dear friends and fans,
>
> We've all talked about how we're
> losing the war of words in the
> struggle for our liberties.
> Well here comes the cavalry.
>
> I'll have the first part formatted
> as a two-column table you can download
> from my site, http://www.gunlaws.com,
> just as soon as I can get it posted
> (use the New Stuff button).
>
> My own email list is meager. Do not assume
> I have sent this to your own state's right
> places. I can only count on you for that.
> I don't think I even reach all 50 states
> myself.
>
> Alan.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> For Publication, 3,449 Words, 2/29/00
> One-time North American Serial Rights
> Copyright 2000 Alan Korwin
> Not-for-profit circulation is approved.
>
>
>
> POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms
> POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms
> POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms
>
> by Alan Korwin, Author
> Gun Laws of America
>
>
>
> Part One -- The Concept
> Part One -- The Concept
>
>
> Certain words hurt you when you're talking about your rights.
>
> People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating
> the language so far. Without even realizing it, you're probably using
> terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.
>
> To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you
> need effective word choices.
>
>
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> PRO GUN
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> PRO RIGHTS
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> GUN CONTROL
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> CRIME CONTROL
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> ANTI-GUN MOVEMENT
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> SIDEARM
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> CONCEALED CARRY
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> CARRY or RIGHT TO CARRY
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> ASSAULT OR LETHAL WEAPON
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> RACIST GUN LAWS
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> JUNK GUNS
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> SECOND AMENDMENT
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> BILL OF RIGHTS
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> ANTI GUN
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> ANTI GUN
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> ANTI RIGHTS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Guns kill
>
> YOU SAY
> Guns save lives
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Guns cause crime
>
> YOU SAY
> Guns stop crime
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Guns are too dangerous to own
>
> YOU SAY
> Then you should take a safety class
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Guns are too dangerous to own
>
> YOU SAY
> Then don't trust the boys and girls in
> the military and police with them
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> People shouldn't have guns
>
> YOU SAY
> You shouldn't be required to have one
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> The only purpose of a gun is to kill
>
> YOU SAY
> The main purpose of a gun is to protect
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> People shouldn't have guns
>
> YOU SAY
> Only the good people should have the guns
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Guns should go away
>
> YOU SAY
> Then you should personally sign up to never
> have a gun in your life, under penalty of felony
> arrest, as you would ask of me.
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> They should take all the guns away
>
> YOU SAY
> Bad guys first
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY:
> We need more gun laws
>
> YOU SAY:
> Everything criminal about guns is already illegal
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY:
> Why would anyone want to own a gun?
>
> YOU SAY:
> You're kidding, right?
> You mean you really don't know?
> Well, why do you think the police have guns?
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> We're not really against people having guns
>
> YOU SAY
> What sort of guns do you think
> people should have, and why
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Do you really have a gun?
>
> YOU SAY
> Of course, don't you?
>
> Then just give it a rest and watch where it goes. You'll hear their
> litany, replete with flaws. Don't rebut, seize the moment, listen hard
> and learn -- then just raise an eyebrow and think, "How 'bout that.
> Feller doesn't even own a gun. It takes all kinds." Then talk about
> something else. And boy, does the disjoint hang in their craw.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Part Two -- THE GLOSSARY
> Part Two -- THE GLOSSARY
>
>
>
> PRO RIGHTS
> A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common "pro
> gun." The reverse term, which describes them, is "anti rights."
> Misguided utopian disarmament advocates love the phrases "pro gun" and
> "anti gun", because they automatically win when they're used. They
> believe the righteous path is to be anti gun, because only devils would
> be pro gun. You flat lose if you allow a debate to be framed that way.
>
> The debate is really between people who are "pro rights" and "anti
> rights" (and then you automatically win), because the righteous choice
> between pro rights and anti rights is obvious. You're pro safety; pro
> self defense; pro freedom; pro liberty; pro Bill of Rights (correctly
> casting them as anti safety; anti self defense; anti freedom; anti
> liberty; anti Bill of Rights). This is an accurate depiction of people
> who would restrict, repress and flat-out deny civil rights you and your
> ancestors have always had in America.
>
>
> ANTI RIGHTS
> A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common "anti
> gun." The reverse term, which describes you, is "pro rights." Fight
> the desire to cast repressionists as "anti gun," (and by so doing
> casting yourself narrowly as "pro gun"). Instead, always refer more
> broadly to the "anti-rights" posture they take. Make them argue rights,
> not guns.
>
>
> CRIME CONTROL
> What "gun control" used to mean, and a generally good idea (the phrase
> "gun control" has morphed to mean "disarm the public" and thus should be
> avoided, more on this later). Everyone basically agrees there should be
> crime control, so it is good grounds for détente. A common sense and
> reasonable proposal. Includes forcibly disarming criminals. Emphasizes
> the differences between criminals and an armed public.
>
>
> GUN BIGOT
> A person who hates guns. Typically has little or no personal knowledge
> of guns, may never have even fired one, certainly doesn't have any.
> Would subject innocent people to defenselessness without compunction.
> An elitist. One with an irrational and morbid fear of guns that is
> ignorant and immoral. Spews bile and venom at guns, gun owners,
> gun-rights advocates, gun-rights associations, pro-Bill of Rights
> legislators. Striking similarity and direct parallels with racial
> bigotry before (and even after) the civil rights efforts of the 1960s.
>
>
> GUN BIGOTRY
> The notion that you can only own a gun if it is expensive, or passes a
> drop test, a melting point test, a consumer products test, a government
> design test, a caliber size, an ammunition capacity, a lock test, etc.
> The notion that only idiots, miscreants, red necks, dim bulbs and other
> nasty-named people would own guns. The notion that you can only vote,
> oops, I mean have a firearm, if you pass a test run by your government,
> and pay the tax, often called a "fee." The notion that anyone who fails
> the tests -- or any other qualifications -- automatically forfeits their
> rights "for the common good." An inability to distinguish honest people
> from criminals.
>
>
> GUN PREJUDICE
> Discrimination against honest people merely for their legal ownership or
> possession of firearms. A common occurrence in society today. A
> violation of your constitutional and natural rights. Gun prejudice
> appears to be a federal civil-rights offense, punishable by prison and
> fine. Now there's a thought. Repressionists have attempted some very
> novel court challenges to laws that protect our liberties. Turnabout's
> fair play. If there were, say, a city bank somewhere that refused
> customers simply because they legally handled firearms...
>
>
> AFFORDABLE FIREARMS
> Anti-rights bigots curse these as "junk guns" and "Saturday night
> specials," racial epithets you should never use. The racist goal of
> outlawing guns unless they're expensive is self evident and
> reprehensible. A woman who eats inexpensive food and drives an
> inexpensive car doesn't lose her right to protect her family because she
> can only afford an inexpensive gun.
>
>
> SIDEARM
> Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though
> accurate perhaps) "semiautomatic handgun," a term which many people
> think means machine gun, according to Handgun Control (who recommends
> use of the term "semiautomatic handgun"). Unfortunately, "handgun" has
> been vilified beyond usability, and needs to be retired or at least
> back-burnered for now. Remember, it was the so-called Brady "handgun"
> law that federalized all retail sales of rifles and shotguns.
>
>
> PISTOL
> Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though
> accurate perhaps) "semiautomatic handgun." A basic, reliable, standard
> type of pistol, a regular pistol, an ordinary pistol, the same kind of
> pistol anyone would normally own. A basic, reliable, standard type of
> sidearm, a regular sidearm, an ordinary sidearm, the same kind of
> sidearm anyone would normally own.
>
>
> HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS
> The type any household is likely to have. All the firearms you own,
> despite constant name-calling from the media, are just household
> firearms.
>
>
> GOVERNMENT GUN
> The only kind you can now buy in America at retail.
>
>
> BASIC SELF-DEFENSE GUN
> Any type of firearm that could save your life in an emergency.
>
>
> CARRY
> Expunge the word "concealed" because so many people hear it and believe
> only a criminal would conceal something. It implies you have something
> to hide. Because being discreet is a common sense, reasonable measure,
> there's no need to demean it with an ugly adjective (in this use anyway)
> like "concealed." "Carry license," not "concealed-carry license."
>
>
> LETHALITY
> The quality of a gun that makes it useful as a crime-stopping,
> life-saving, defensive tool. A point that is attacked subtly in most
> anti-rights arguments. When met head on, the issue works against the
> anti-rights position. Caliber and capacity restrictions reduce
> lethality and your ability to save yourself or the state. Reducing
> lethality costs lives. Why should police need more capacity than you,
> when you both face the same criminals. How few bullets may a person use
> against an attacker, and how small should they be.
>
> Guns are dangerous. They're supposed to be dangerous. They wouldn't be
> any good if they weren't dangerous. Anything that makes them less
> dangerous by reducing lethality puts you (or police officers) at
> unacceptable risk.
>
>
> ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT
> People who believe you have little or no right to defend yourself if
> attacked, because social order may only be imposed by an authority, and
> that such authority is superior to your right to exist (if push comes to
> shove). Also sometimes referred to as socialists. Sometimes expressed
> as your right to keep a cell phone handy to dial 911. The
> anti-self-defense movement is often deceptively portrayed as the
> "anti-gun movement." Never let them hide behind their comfortable
> disguise as anti gun.
>
>
> POLITICALLY CORRECTED
> Language that does not automatically bias a debate about the Bill of
> Rights against individual liberty and freedom. Opposite of "politically
> correct" language, which is basically socialist in nature. We all
> recognize that "political correctness" is "incorrect," and then we sneer
> and dismiss it. We do this at great peril, however, for PC statements
> treated that way don't just go away, they fester and insidiously modify
> the paradigm, and bend our thinking into acceptance of that which we
> have verbalized as "correct."
>
> You want a good example of neurolinguistic programming and
> transformational grammar on a national scale, there it is to a tee.
> It's how we get to the Orwellian point where war is peace, freedom is
> slavery, ignorance is strength.
>
>
> BILL OF RIGHTS
> More broadly appealing and less polarizing than "Second Amendment."
> Sure, I like the Second Amendment, and talk about it all the time. But
> saying "Bill of Rights" protects you from malicious stigma and
> stereotyping as a gun nut. Much more difficult to oppose, slows the
> bigots down. All the rights count, don't they, and they're all under
> attack. Bill of Rights Day. Pro Bill of Rights. I support the Bill of
> Rights, don't you? Actually, even virulent gun haters and gun bigots
> champion the First Amendment and other parts of the BOR, which, if
> you'll recall, was a single amendment (with separate articles) to the
> Constitution.
>
>
> SUNSHINE GUN LAWS
> Laws that encourage gun safety training and responsible firearms
> ownership, as opposed to repressive laws that criminalize honest gun
> ownership and infringe civil rights. Civil rights.
>
>
> THE FIRST AMENDMENT
> Stop saying Second Amendment so much, since the other side tunes this
> out immediately, and marginalizes you as a gun nut. Say "First
> Amendment" instead, and make your comparisons there -- does the
> government jeopardize your First Amendment rights? You betcha! Should
> you be concerned? Of course! What would you think of Internet
> censorship, government approved religion, font size limits, restricted
> word choices, acceptable word counts, licensed writers, training and
> testing before publishing controversial editorials, and tests for
> accuracy -- now there's a nice parallel.
>
> People on all sides recognize there are threats to free speech,
> religion, privacy and more from our friends, the government. The same
> root problems affect the whole Bill of Rights, gun rights are no
> different than other rights under attack.
>
>
> GUN-SAFETY CLASSES
> Something that, with all the accidents reported in America, all
> Americans should be taking -- from the tens of thousands of trainers out
> there. Always encourage people on both sides of a debate to take a real
> class. Why wouldn't an honest person take a gun-safety class? Going
> out for some wholesome and relaxing target practice, with friends.
> Getting good at marksmanship. Target practice. Marksmanship. These
> words have not been defiled and cast a good light, use them. Privately
> promoted gun-safety training days. Talk up the goal of "National
> Accident Reduction" through education and training. Private enterprise
> should vigorously swell to fill the gaping theater called, "We need more
> safety."
>
>
> ROWANITES
> Anti-rights bigots who secretly own guns themselves, rely upon armed
> guards for security, or live inside communities with private security
> forces, but decry your right to arms. Closet gun owners. Named in
> honor of Carl Rowan, a vicious anti-gun bigot whose syndicated newspaper
> column vilified guns and gun owners for years, to a vast audience, until
> he one day fired at a trespasser near his home.
>
>
> GUN BUYUPS
> Gun buy back programs are misnamed. You cannot buy back something you
> didn't own in the first place. Since the Brady law prohibits dumping
> such guns into criminal lairs (gun buyers must be certified by the FBI
> these days), there is no longer justification for destroying firearms
> collected in buyups. That's right, there is no longer any justification
> at all for destroying firearms collected in buyups. When buyups are
> government funded, meltdowns are therefore wanton destruction of a
> public asset, and someone deserves to be held liable. Tax dollars are
> buying legal property simply to destroy it, when the only way to sell it
> is to certifiably law abiding individuals. What an outrage.
>
> Where I live, savvy collectors have set up shop at widely publicized gun
> buyups to make competitive bids and cherry pick the merchandise,
> pre-smelter.
>
>
> DEMOCIDE
> Murder committed by government. The most prevalent form of murder,
> responsible this century alone for 170 million deaths. Regime-ocide.
>
>
> GUN CONTROL
> Now generally synonymous with "disarming the public." Using the phrase
> "gun control" in its currently twisted form distorts the debate and
> should be avoided; it is the other side's rallying flag, bolstered every
> time the words leave your lips; argue about gun control and you've
> already lost. Use "crime control," "accident reduction" and "disarming
> the public" to distinguish issues and preserve accuracy.
>
> Listen hard when you hear the term "gun control" in the news. You'll
> notice they're basically not talking about controlling crime. They're
> talking about controlling you.
>
> Always start by asking what a person means when they say this phrase,
> then shut up and see. Often, people who think of themselves as being
> anti gun, unwittingly adopt the position that only the rulers should be
> armed (cop and army guns OK, but not you; such a person isn't anti gun
> at all, they're simply anti rights -- your rights).
>
> When a "gun-control law" regulates or demeans honest people in the false
> name of controlling crime, that's actually tyranny. When "gun control"
> controls your right to have a gun, that is people control. The phrase
> "gun control" is a dangerous misnomer (some would say euphemism) for an
> agenda now actively pursued by a segment of society -- that would
> consolidate power solely in "official" hands.
>
> Help seize the metaphor back:
>
> 1. Drop into conversation how your gun control at target practice
> recently was better than usual, or how you have pretty good gun control
> but you still need some lessons. Invite someone to your gun-control
> class at the range next Tuesday -- free style target practice. A well
> advertised gun-control class might attract some pretty interesting
> neighbors. Jokes about gun control ("a steady hand") are
> neurolinguistically challenged and don't help. Say something else funny
> if you must be funny.
>
> 2. When reporters and others inevitably ask, "Are you in favor of gun
> control?" they often don't realize their question is as biased as, "Are
> you still beating your wife?" So it's up to you to show them. They're
> looking for a pro or con answer, and then a question of how much. Don't
> play into it. Instead, try responding, "Well me, I'm in favor of crime
> control. How about you?"
>
> 3. When you write about so-called "gun control" or so-called
> "gun-control laws" always put it in quotes, to disparage it.
>
>
> THE HENIGAN/BOGUS THEORY
> Named by Dave Kopel in honor of its two leading proponents (Dennis
> Henigan and Carl Bogus). This is the notion, first arising a few
> decades ago, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual
> right. It stands in opposition to the fact that "the people" means all
> of us, and is responsible for the widely armed population we observe
> today. Covered more thoroughly in an earlier article of mine, The Big
> Lie (posted under Position Papers at http://www.gunlaws.com). Kopel's
> recent paper on this, for the St. Louis University Public Law Review, is
> nothing short of brilliant. David can be reached at
> http://www.independenceinstitute.net.
>
>
> COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
> A tool for reaching closed minds. The use of questions to point out
> fundamental illogic, which can then topple the notions a person builds
> on that flawed base. An application of the Socratic method. The mental
> awareness that forms when a simple question challenges fundamentally
> held beliefs. Here are many. One at a time is usually enough for most
> minds.
>
> If a registration list makes sense for the Second Amendment, would it
> make sense for the First Amendment?
>
> Are criminals and an armed citizenry the same thing?
>
> So why do people these days carry guns anyway, and does it ever work?
>
> Should it be against the law to defend yourself?
>
> If a person can't have a gun, why should the police have them?
>
> So if you are allowed to defend yourself, how many bullets can you use?
>
> Shouldn't we disarm the criminals first?
>
> Why haven't we disarmed the criminals?
>
> Why don't they arrest all the Brady criminals they find?
>
> Are you against an armed citizenry?
>
> Do you believe that only the rulers should have guns?
>
> Now let me see if I understand this; when you say "gun control," do you
> mean "stop crime" or "disarm the public"?
>
> Now let me see if I understand this; when you say you're anti gun, do
> you mean you want to disarm the police and the armed forces?
>
> If you don't want to disarm the police and military, you're not really
> anti gun at all. You're anti private gun. Why is that?
>
> You know, after listening to you for a while, you've convinced me that
> you should never own a gun.
>
> I'm against the idea that you should be forced to own a gun, and I would
> stand up for your right to not be armed.
>
> Maybe you could sign up to be permanently disbarred from ever owning a
> gun. Would you do that (as you would ask me to do)?
>
>
> Closing Note:
>
> This article doesn't end here. In attempting a document like this, I
> know I can never reach its ending. It defines a path which simply
> stretches forward.
>
> If I wait until I have this evolved to my satisfaction it will never
> wrap. These ideas are too important to let wait that long. Consider it
> an early peek at a work in progress.
>
> Alan.
>
>
>
>
> "Social balance has evolved into a war of the metaphor --
> neurolinguistic programming meets George Orwell."
> -- Alan Korwin
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Alan Korwin is the author of seven best-selling books on gun law,
> including "Gun Laws of America -- Every Federal Gun Law on the Books,
> with Plain English Summaries," and gun owner guides for AZ, CA, FL, TX,
> VA. This paper is part of an ongoing series, click Position Papers on
> the home page, or write or call for copies.
>
>
> BRAND NEW --
> BRAND NEW --
> "Licensed to Carry" by Greg Jeffery
> Check out this 30-State Shall-Issue License Guide,
> find out what it takes to get a carry license in each state.
> Use the link below.
>
> ALSO --
> 50-State Traveler's Guide to the Gun Laws
> Use the link below.
>
> LOOK AT "GUN LAWS OF AMERICA" YOURSELF --
> If you knew all your rights you might demand them.
> Use the link below.
>
> AVAILABLE AT LAST:
> Gun owner guides for New York and Utah.
> Use the link below.
>
> Contact:
> Alan Korwin
> BLOOMFIELD PRESS
> "We publish the gun laws"
> 12629 N. Tatum #440
> Phoenix, AZ 85032
> 602-996-4020 Phone
> 602-494-0679 FAX
> 1-800-707-4020 Book orders
> http://www.gunlaws.com
>
> Sign up for future updates on our home page.
>
Alan Korwin, author of various gun law books ( http://www.gunlaws.com ) has now summarized these thoughts, refined them, and added more. This is long, so scan it, and / or visit his web site.
It is high time we made the dark side dance to our tune for awhile.
Regards from AZ
********************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Korwin <alan@bloomfieldpress.com>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2000 12:34 PM
Subject: Politically Corrected Glossary
> Dear friends and fans,
>
> We've all talked about how we're
> losing the war of words in the
> struggle for our liberties.
> Well here comes the cavalry.
>
> I'll have the first part formatted
> as a two-column table you can download
> from my site, http://www.gunlaws.com,
> just as soon as I can get it posted
> (use the New Stuff button).
>
> My own email list is meager. Do not assume
> I have sent this to your own state's right
> places. I can only count on you for that.
> I don't think I even reach all 50 states
> myself.
>
> Alan.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> For Publication, 3,449 Words, 2/29/00
> One-time North American Serial Rights
> Copyright 2000 Alan Korwin
> Not-for-profit circulation is approved.
>
>
>
> POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms
> POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms
> POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms
>
> by Alan Korwin, Author
> Gun Laws of America
>
>
>
> Part One -- The Concept
> Part One -- The Concept
>
>
> Certain words hurt you when you're talking about your rights.
>
> People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating
> the language so far. Without even realizing it, you're probably using
> terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.
>
> To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you
> need effective word choices.
>
>
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> PRO GUN
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> PRO RIGHTS
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> GUN CONTROL
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> CRIME CONTROL
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> ANTI-GUN MOVEMENT
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> SIDEARM
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> CONCEALED CARRY
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> CARRY or RIGHT TO CARRY
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> ASSAULT OR LETHAL WEAPON
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> RACIST GUN LAWS
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> JUNK GUNS
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> SECOND AMENDMENT
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> BILL OF RIGHTS
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> ANTI GUN
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE
>
> ====================================
>
> They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
> ANTI GUN
>
> It's better to say (and they lose if you say):
> ANTI RIGHTS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Guns kill
>
> YOU SAY
> Guns save lives
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Guns cause crime
>
> YOU SAY
> Guns stop crime
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Guns are too dangerous to own
>
> YOU SAY
> Then you should take a safety class
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Guns are too dangerous to own
>
> YOU SAY
> Then don't trust the boys and girls in
> the military and police with them
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> People shouldn't have guns
>
> YOU SAY
> You shouldn't be required to have one
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> The only purpose of a gun is to kill
>
> YOU SAY
> The main purpose of a gun is to protect
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> People shouldn't have guns
>
> YOU SAY
> Only the good people should have the guns
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Guns should go away
>
> YOU SAY
> Then you should personally sign up to never
> have a gun in your life, under penalty of felony
> arrest, as you would ask of me.
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> They should take all the guns away
>
> YOU SAY
> Bad guys first
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY:
> We need more gun laws
>
> YOU SAY:
> Everything criminal about guns is already illegal
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY:
> Why would anyone want to own a gun?
>
> YOU SAY:
> You're kidding, right?
> You mean you really don't know?
> Well, why do you think the police have guns?
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> We're not really against people having guns
>
> YOU SAY
> What sort of guns do you think
> people should have, and why
>
> ====================================
>
> WHEN THEY SAY
> Do you really have a gun?
>
> YOU SAY
> Of course, don't you?
>
> Then just give it a rest and watch where it goes. You'll hear their
> litany, replete with flaws. Don't rebut, seize the moment, listen hard
> and learn -- then just raise an eyebrow and think, "How 'bout that.
> Feller doesn't even own a gun. It takes all kinds." Then talk about
> something else. And boy, does the disjoint hang in their craw.
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Part Two -- THE GLOSSARY
> Part Two -- THE GLOSSARY
>
>
>
> PRO RIGHTS
> A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common "pro
> gun." The reverse term, which describes them, is "anti rights."
> Misguided utopian disarmament advocates love the phrases "pro gun" and
> "anti gun", because they automatically win when they're used. They
> believe the righteous path is to be anti gun, because only devils would
> be pro gun. You flat lose if you allow a debate to be framed that way.
>
> The debate is really between people who are "pro rights" and "anti
> rights" (and then you automatically win), because the righteous choice
> between pro rights and anti rights is obvious. You're pro safety; pro
> self defense; pro freedom; pro liberty; pro Bill of Rights (correctly
> casting them as anti safety; anti self defense; anti freedom; anti
> liberty; anti Bill of Rights). This is an accurate depiction of people
> who would restrict, repress and flat-out deny civil rights you and your
> ancestors have always had in America.
>
>
> ANTI RIGHTS
> A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common "anti
> gun." The reverse term, which describes you, is "pro rights." Fight
> the desire to cast repressionists as "anti gun," (and by so doing
> casting yourself narrowly as "pro gun"). Instead, always refer more
> broadly to the "anti-rights" posture they take. Make them argue rights,
> not guns.
>
>
> CRIME CONTROL
> What "gun control" used to mean, and a generally good idea (the phrase
> "gun control" has morphed to mean "disarm the public" and thus should be
> avoided, more on this later). Everyone basically agrees there should be
> crime control, so it is good grounds for détente. A common sense and
> reasonable proposal. Includes forcibly disarming criminals. Emphasizes
> the differences between criminals and an armed public.
>
>
> GUN BIGOT
> A person who hates guns. Typically has little or no personal knowledge
> of guns, may never have even fired one, certainly doesn't have any.
> Would subject innocent people to defenselessness without compunction.
> An elitist. One with an irrational and morbid fear of guns that is
> ignorant and immoral. Spews bile and venom at guns, gun owners,
> gun-rights advocates, gun-rights associations, pro-Bill of Rights
> legislators. Striking similarity and direct parallels with racial
> bigotry before (and even after) the civil rights efforts of the 1960s.
>
>
> GUN BIGOTRY
> The notion that you can only own a gun if it is expensive, or passes a
> drop test, a melting point test, a consumer products test, a government
> design test, a caliber size, an ammunition capacity, a lock test, etc.
> The notion that only idiots, miscreants, red necks, dim bulbs and other
> nasty-named people would own guns. The notion that you can only vote,
> oops, I mean have a firearm, if you pass a test run by your government,
> and pay the tax, often called a "fee." The notion that anyone who fails
> the tests -- or any other qualifications -- automatically forfeits their
> rights "for the common good." An inability to distinguish honest people
> from criminals.
>
>
> GUN PREJUDICE
> Discrimination against honest people merely for their legal ownership or
> possession of firearms. A common occurrence in society today. A
> violation of your constitutional and natural rights. Gun prejudice
> appears to be a federal civil-rights offense, punishable by prison and
> fine. Now there's a thought. Repressionists have attempted some very
> novel court challenges to laws that protect our liberties. Turnabout's
> fair play. If there were, say, a city bank somewhere that refused
> customers simply because they legally handled firearms...
>
>
> AFFORDABLE FIREARMS
> Anti-rights bigots curse these as "junk guns" and "Saturday night
> specials," racial epithets you should never use. The racist goal of
> outlawing guns unless they're expensive is self evident and
> reprehensible. A woman who eats inexpensive food and drives an
> inexpensive car doesn't lose her right to protect her family because she
> can only afford an inexpensive gun.
>
>
> SIDEARM
> Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though
> accurate perhaps) "semiautomatic handgun," a term which many people
> think means machine gun, according to Handgun Control (who recommends
> use of the term "semiautomatic handgun"). Unfortunately, "handgun" has
> been vilified beyond usability, and needs to be retired or at least
> back-burnered for now. Remember, it was the so-called Brady "handgun"
> law that federalized all retail sales of rifles and shotguns.
>
>
> PISTOL
> Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though
> accurate perhaps) "semiautomatic handgun." A basic, reliable, standard
> type of pistol, a regular pistol, an ordinary pistol, the same kind of
> pistol anyone would normally own. A basic, reliable, standard type of
> sidearm, a regular sidearm, an ordinary sidearm, the same kind of
> sidearm anyone would normally own.
>
>
> HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS
> The type any household is likely to have. All the firearms you own,
> despite constant name-calling from the media, are just household
> firearms.
>
>
> GOVERNMENT GUN
> The only kind you can now buy in America at retail.
>
>
> BASIC SELF-DEFENSE GUN
> Any type of firearm that could save your life in an emergency.
>
>
> CARRY
> Expunge the word "concealed" because so many people hear it and believe
> only a criminal would conceal something. It implies you have something
> to hide. Because being discreet is a common sense, reasonable measure,
> there's no need to demean it with an ugly adjective (in this use anyway)
> like "concealed." "Carry license," not "concealed-carry license."
>
>
> LETHALITY
> The quality of a gun that makes it useful as a crime-stopping,
> life-saving, defensive tool. A point that is attacked subtly in most
> anti-rights arguments. When met head on, the issue works against the
> anti-rights position. Caliber and capacity restrictions reduce
> lethality and your ability to save yourself or the state. Reducing
> lethality costs lives. Why should police need more capacity than you,
> when you both face the same criminals. How few bullets may a person use
> against an attacker, and how small should they be.
>
> Guns are dangerous. They're supposed to be dangerous. They wouldn't be
> any good if they weren't dangerous. Anything that makes them less
> dangerous by reducing lethality puts you (or police officers) at
> unacceptable risk.
>
>
> ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT
> People who believe you have little or no right to defend yourself if
> attacked, because social order may only be imposed by an authority, and
> that such authority is superior to your right to exist (if push comes to
> shove). Also sometimes referred to as socialists. Sometimes expressed
> as your right to keep a cell phone handy to dial 911. The
> anti-self-defense movement is often deceptively portrayed as the
> "anti-gun movement." Never let them hide behind their comfortable
> disguise as anti gun.
>
>
> POLITICALLY CORRECTED
> Language that does not automatically bias a debate about the Bill of
> Rights against individual liberty and freedom. Opposite of "politically
> correct" language, which is basically socialist in nature. We all
> recognize that "political correctness" is "incorrect," and then we sneer
> and dismiss it. We do this at great peril, however, for PC statements
> treated that way don't just go away, they fester and insidiously modify
> the paradigm, and bend our thinking into acceptance of that which we
> have verbalized as "correct."
>
> You want a good example of neurolinguistic programming and
> transformational grammar on a national scale, there it is to a tee.
> It's how we get to the Orwellian point where war is peace, freedom is
> slavery, ignorance is strength.
>
>
> BILL OF RIGHTS
> More broadly appealing and less polarizing than "Second Amendment."
> Sure, I like the Second Amendment, and talk about it all the time. But
> saying "Bill of Rights" protects you from malicious stigma and
> stereotyping as a gun nut. Much more difficult to oppose, slows the
> bigots down. All the rights count, don't they, and they're all under
> attack. Bill of Rights Day. Pro Bill of Rights. I support the Bill of
> Rights, don't you? Actually, even virulent gun haters and gun bigots
> champion the First Amendment and other parts of the BOR, which, if
> you'll recall, was a single amendment (with separate articles) to the
> Constitution.
>
>
> SUNSHINE GUN LAWS
> Laws that encourage gun safety training and responsible firearms
> ownership, as opposed to repressive laws that criminalize honest gun
> ownership and infringe civil rights. Civil rights.
>
>
> THE FIRST AMENDMENT
> Stop saying Second Amendment so much, since the other side tunes this
> out immediately, and marginalizes you as a gun nut. Say "First
> Amendment" instead, and make your comparisons there -- does the
> government jeopardize your First Amendment rights? You betcha! Should
> you be concerned? Of course! What would you think of Internet
> censorship, government approved religion, font size limits, restricted
> word choices, acceptable word counts, licensed writers, training and
> testing before publishing controversial editorials, and tests for
> accuracy -- now there's a nice parallel.
>
> People on all sides recognize there are threats to free speech,
> religion, privacy and more from our friends, the government. The same
> root problems affect the whole Bill of Rights, gun rights are no
> different than other rights under attack.
>
>
> GUN-SAFETY CLASSES
> Something that, with all the accidents reported in America, all
> Americans should be taking -- from the tens of thousands of trainers out
> there. Always encourage people on both sides of a debate to take a real
> class. Why wouldn't an honest person take a gun-safety class? Going
> out for some wholesome and relaxing target practice, with friends.
> Getting good at marksmanship. Target practice. Marksmanship. These
> words have not been defiled and cast a good light, use them. Privately
> promoted gun-safety training days. Talk up the goal of "National
> Accident Reduction" through education and training. Private enterprise
> should vigorously swell to fill the gaping theater called, "We need more
> safety."
>
>
> ROWANITES
> Anti-rights bigots who secretly own guns themselves, rely upon armed
> guards for security, or live inside communities with private security
> forces, but decry your right to arms. Closet gun owners. Named in
> honor of Carl Rowan, a vicious anti-gun bigot whose syndicated newspaper
> column vilified guns and gun owners for years, to a vast audience, until
> he one day fired at a trespasser near his home.
>
>
> GUN BUYUPS
> Gun buy back programs are misnamed. You cannot buy back something you
> didn't own in the first place. Since the Brady law prohibits dumping
> such guns into criminal lairs (gun buyers must be certified by the FBI
> these days), there is no longer justification for destroying firearms
> collected in buyups. That's right, there is no longer any justification
> at all for destroying firearms collected in buyups. When buyups are
> government funded, meltdowns are therefore wanton destruction of a
> public asset, and someone deserves to be held liable. Tax dollars are
> buying legal property simply to destroy it, when the only way to sell it
> is to certifiably law abiding individuals. What an outrage.
>
> Where I live, savvy collectors have set up shop at widely publicized gun
> buyups to make competitive bids and cherry pick the merchandise,
> pre-smelter.
>
>
> DEMOCIDE
> Murder committed by government. The most prevalent form of murder,
> responsible this century alone for 170 million deaths. Regime-ocide.
>
>
> GUN CONTROL
> Now generally synonymous with "disarming the public." Using the phrase
> "gun control" in its currently twisted form distorts the debate and
> should be avoided; it is the other side's rallying flag, bolstered every
> time the words leave your lips; argue about gun control and you've
> already lost. Use "crime control," "accident reduction" and "disarming
> the public" to distinguish issues and preserve accuracy.
>
> Listen hard when you hear the term "gun control" in the news. You'll
> notice they're basically not talking about controlling crime. They're
> talking about controlling you.
>
> Always start by asking what a person means when they say this phrase,
> then shut up and see. Often, people who think of themselves as being
> anti gun, unwittingly adopt the position that only the rulers should be
> armed (cop and army guns OK, but not you; such a person isn't anti gun
> at all, they're simply anti rights -- your rights).
>
> When a "gun-control law" regulates or demeans honest people in the false
> name of controlling crime, that's actually tyranny. When "gun control"
> controls your right to have a gun, that is people control. The phrase
> "gun control" is a dangerous misnomer (some would say euphemism) for an
> agenda now actively pursued by a segment of society -- that would
> consolidate power solely in "official" hands.
>
> Help seize the metaphor back:
>
> 1. Drop into conversation how your gun control at target practice
> recently was better than usual, or how you have pretty good gun control
> but you still need some lessons. Invite someone to your gun-control
> class at the range next Tuesday -- free style target practice. A well
> advertised gun-control class might attract some pretty interesting
> neighbors. Jokes about gun control ("a steady hand") are
> neurolinguistically challenged and don't help. Say something else funny
> if you must be funny.
>
> 2. When reporters and others inevitably ask, "Are you in favor of gun
> control?" they often don't realize their question is as biased as, "Are
> you still beating your wife?" So it's up to you to show them. They're
> looking for a pro or con answer, and then a question of how much. Don't
> play into it. Instead, try responding, "Well me, I'm in favor of crime
> control. How about you?"
>
> 3. When you write about so-called "gun control" or so-called
> "gun-control laws" always put it in quotes, to disparage it.
>
>
> THE HENIGAN/BOGUS THEORY
> Named by Dave Kopel in honor of its two leading proponents (Dennis
> Henigan and Carl Bogus). This is the notion, first arising a few
> decades ago, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual
> right. It stands in opposition to the fact that "the people" means all
> of us, and is responsible for the widely armed population we observe
> today. Covered more thoroughly in an earlier article of mine, The Big
> Lie (posted under Position Papers at http://www.gunlaws.com). Kopel's
> recent paper on this, for the St. Louis University Public Law Review, is
> nothing short of brilliant. David can be reached at
> http://www.independenceinstitute.net.
>
>
> COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
> A tool for reaching closed minds. The use of questions to point out
> fundamental illogic, which can then topple the notions a person builds
> on that flawed base. An application of the Socratic method. The mental
> awareness that forms when a simple question challenges fundamentally
> held beliefs. Here are many. One at a time is usually enough for most
> minds.
>
> If a registration list makes sense for the Second Amendment, would it
> make sense for the First Amendment?
>
> Are criminals and an armed citizenry the same thing?
>
> So why do people these days carry guns anyway, and does it ever work?
>
> Should it be against the law to defend yourself?
>
> If a person can't have a gun, why should the police have them?
>
> So if you are allowed to defend yourself, how many bullets can you use?
>
> Shouldn't we disarm the criminals first?
>
> Why haven't we disarmed the criminals?
>
> Why don't they arrest all the Brady criminals they find?
>
> Are you against an armed citizenry?
>
> Do you believe that only the rulers should have guns?
>
> Now let me see if I understand this; when you say "gun control," do you
> mean "stop crime" or "disarm the public"?
>
> Now let me see if I understand this; when you say you're anti gun, do
> you mean you want to disarm the police and the armed forces?
>
> If you don't want to disarm the police and military, you're not really
> anti gun at all. You're anti private gun. Why is that?
>
> You know, after listening to you for a while, you've convinced me that
> you should never own a gun.
>
> I'm against the idea that you should be forced to own a gun, and I would
> stand up for your right to not be armed.
>
> Maybe you could sign up to be permanently disbarred from ever owning a
> gun. Would you do that (as you would ask me to do)?
>
>
> Closing Note:
>
> This article doesn't end here. In attempting a document like this, I
> know I can never reach its ending. It defines a path which simply
> stretches forward.
>
> If I wait until I have this evolved to my satisfaction it will never
> wrap. These ideas are too important to let wait that long. Consider it
> an early peek at a work in progress.
>
> Alan.
>
>
>
>
> "Social balance has evolved into a war of the metaphor --
> neurolinguistic programming meets George Orwell."
> -- Alan Korwin
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Alan Korwin is the author of seven best-selling books on gun law,
> including "Gun Laws of America -- Every Federal Gun Law on the Books,
> with Plain English Summaries," and gun owner guides for AZ, CA, FL, TX,
> VA. This paper is part of an ongoing series, click Position Papers on
> the home page, or write or call for copies.
>
>
> BRAND NEW --
> BRAND NEW --
> "Licensed to Carry" by Greg Jeffery
> Check out this 30-State Shall-Issue License Guide,
> find out what it takes to get a carry license in each state.
> Use the link below.
>
> ALSO --
> 50-State Traveler's Guide to the Gun Laws
> Use the link below.
>
> LOOK AT "GUN LAWS OF AMERICA" YOURSELF --
> If you knew all your rights you might demand them.
> Use the link below.
>
> AVAILABLE AT LAST:
> Gun owner guides for New York and Utah.
> Use the link below.
>
> Contact:
> Alan Korwin
> BLOOMFIELD PRESS
> "We publish the gun laws"
> 12629 N. Tatum #440
> Phoenix, AZ 85032
> 602-996-4020 Phone
> 602-494-0679 FAX
> 1-800-707-4020 Book orders
> http://www.gunlaws.com
>
> Sign up for future updates on our home page.
>
